stephan huller

The fact that as far as I can see only the Vita Constantini mentions Arius in depth is deeply significant. Timothy Thornton is open to the suggestion that "the Vita Constantini, if it had not received its final hurried editing from Eusebius himself, could have been published by a literary executor. perhaps by Acacius who succeeded Eusebius as bishop of Caesarea. (See Socrates, H.E. 2.4.)." The basic idea is that the Vita Constantini must have been published before the summer of 340, as it assumes both that Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans (the three sons of Constantine who succeeded him) are all alive and that good relationships exist between them. (Constantine II invaded Constans' territories in 340 and killed at Aquileia). Eusebius probably died in May 339 (see T.D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, p. 263).

stephan huller

But the problem this poses for your claims is that it is plain that Eusebius isn't in on the Arius myth.

stephan huller

Another author writes that the Vita Constantini is "a work of just such hybrid literary character is the Life of Constantine (vita Constantini) by Eusebios of Caesarea, composed in stages and apparently left unfinished in 339, the year of its author's death." http://books.google.com/books?id=_MQ...antini&f=false

Another "The Vita Constantini was most likely composed between 337 and 340, probably by Eusebius of Caesarea."

stephan huller

Socrates Scholasticus on Eusebius's failure to mention the Arians:

stephan huller

The author continues:

mountainman

I thought we agreed that the Arius myth as it is today is derived ostensibly from the 5th century (or afterwards). If we presumed that Constantine pronounced "damnatio memoriae" on Arius then Eusebius may have removed Arius from his accounts while Constantine lived. Also, as I pointed out before, some evidence c.325 CE does exist that suggests Constantine called the "Arians" by the name "Porphyrians".

The way I see it is that Eusebius was left in charge of the Jesus myth - nobody goes over the same ground. But someone else (from the 5th century or later) had to clean up the mess of the controversy of the Jesus Myth when it hit the fan at Nicaea. This other 'impious crew' or 'maudite cabale' consolidated attention against a single adversary - Arius of Alexandria - and took care that nothing could divert that attention from this troublesome Arius.

And while everyone tried to understand what these five sophisms of Arius actually meant - what the fuck was this infernal controversy about ???? - the Three Hundred and Eighteeen Nicaean Fathers consolidated their business plans.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

No I don't think that the Arius narrative was constructed in the fifth century. It's in the Vita Constantini.

stephan huller

One suggestion that makes a lot of sense is the idea that the Vita Constantini was developed with the rule of Constantine's children in mind. In other words, it might have been useful to pin the blame all on a stooge named Arius and move on.

mountainman

Well in that case have you analysed the c.333 CE letter Constantine Augustus to Arius and to Arians?

Constantine reveals a lot about Arius in this letter. FWIW I made some notes here

mountainman

It does make sense. The irreversible Nicaean Decision was in the past and business was business. All they needed to do was to mop up the heretics. And they did.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia